Honestly only if the other OQF 75mms also get the APHE.
Wouldn’t be too bad for game balance.
IMO it would be best to move M61 with no filler to be a rank 1 mod and then add M61 with filler as a rank 3/4 mod.
I don’t that adding more pointless modifications is a good idea. Just give the M61 its explosive filler.
On a side note I wish the Churchill VI with APHE M61 was added instead of the Churchill NA75, I think the NA75 fits much better as a premium than in the tech tree, and both the VI and NA75 would have roughly the same amount of armor, as both are based on the Mk III/IV. Another version was the Churchill IV(75) which was virtually identical to the VI, the only difference being the VI was factory fitted with the OQF 75mm (and why I would prefer the VI to the IV(75).
There both pretty interchangeable then so it wouldn’t be too bad if the other one got added as a premium instead of the NA75. Speaking of the NA75 this thing could go to 4.0 or 3.7 as it’s inferior to the M4A2 in most ways but sits at a higher BR.
As literally said in what you quoted, then further explained in the comments right above your own reply, you’re confusing realistic and historical.
You could build a new Maus to proper spec and have it fight an Abrams, ergo it’s not impossible,.merely improbable.
A crew member being hit directly by a tank shell was never the topic. The topic was doctrine / human factor elements like a tank being penned once and the crew deciding to bail, factors which are irrelevant to WT.
Are you… trying to argue K/D stats for a vehicle whose strengths are things that don’t show up in stats, and whose main weaknesses are firepower(!) and speed? Way to miss the point, again.
That’s no excuse - the Boarhound is simply undertiered due to so few people using it like the Pakwagen was for years. The AEC Mk II would be even nastier with such a shell.
BRs can always be changed if an actually functional shell is added - sometimes the 6-pdr just decides to not spall for whatever reason or be totally absorbed by one module, after which the opponent can spin themselves around (sometimes while on fire), delete me, then repair like nothing happened.
A Valentine with a functional round would still be a Valentine, Churchill-level speed without the armor to back it up. A Crusader would be considerably stronger, as would the AEC. The Cromwells would stand to gain the most.
If the T14 hasn’t gone beyond 4.7 with its far better mobility and APHE, I fail to see why the Churchill VII would increase at all if given the same shell.
Just remember that the Jumbo used to be 4.7 as well.
The Jumbo has 180mm of effective armor at the front and a tiny weakspot. The Churchill has 150mm effective (no you can’t angle the turret) and no stab. It’s also a lot bigger and much slower.
The Churchill has significantly more armor than a Tiger or IS-1.
Both the Tiger and the IS-1 have bad but trolly armor for their BR. They don’t sit at 5.7 for their armor but the mix of average armor, average firepower and average speed. They don’t have to rely on one of them that’s what makes them versatile vehicles at 5.7. The Mk7 only has good armor at 4.7 so of course it sits lower.
It also has the worst gun performane of any vehicle because it’s stuck with solid shot that can barely penetrate vehicles at it’s BR, resulting in the worst possible solid shot damage.
And 38mm cast lower side hull that can be penetrated by a Ostwind with it’s 37mm.
I also just compared them to the Tiger an IS-1 armor wise, it’s not like I would put it at 5.7 just because of APHE.
But there is also the KV-85 and the German KV-1 C which are both 5.0 and a Churchill Mk VII with APHE is simply going to be more effective.
And unlike the Jumbo at 4.7 which had the nasty combination of armor AND mobility, the Churchill VII would still be a poorly mobile brick with poor agility and no reverse speed. It’s not able to be “overpowered” at all with such a shell.
At 4.7 it will be. It’s very hard to destroy for vehicles below 4.7 but it was always held back by it’s damage output. There was practically no point in playing it an in uptier anyway.
As long as you play it at 5.0 and below it’s a great vehicle. Giving it APHE will make it much more effective, so it will go up in BR where it will more armored vehicles with stronger guns.
It will still be far less effective than the KV-1 ZiS-5 or T14 due to lack of mobility. If either of those has not gone up further there’s no real justification to move up the Churchill.
I would give that same M61 round to the Valentine XI, Cromwell V, Cromwell V RP-3, and Excelsior, too.
Meanwhile, I’d move the Churchill NA75 down to 3.7, and give the Churchill III M86, APDS, and its late-war add-on armor package, moving that up to 4.3.
And 38mm cast lower side hull that can be penetrated by a Ostwind with it’s 37mm.
Side armor is nowhere near as important as front armor. That being said the Jumbo has 152mm turret armor compared to 95mm on the Mk7 and that’s far more important than lower side hull.
But there is also the KV-85 and the German KV-1 C which are both 5.0 and a Churchill Mk VII with APHE is simply going to be more effective.
No it wouldn’t. The Mk7 can barely kill them frontally and they can outmaneuver the Churchill easily. Vs other tanks they are also more effective.
Churchill Mk.8? That’s a Mk.7 but with a 95mm howitzer, a variant with Mk.7 armour and the 6pdr never existed to my knowledge. There’s talk of the Mk.IX through XI but there’s next to no evidence they were ever built.
What we could get is the late Mk.III (Or Mk.IV) with it’s applique armour, giving it APDS and an extra 20-30mm on the turret face and hull sides, though it still wouldn’t deserve a higher BR than 4.3/4.7 IMO.
The T-14 is much more vulnerable to German 75mm guns than the Churchill.
Also weaker guns are more capable to penetrating the T-14 compared to the Churchill.